Can Orthodox Women Receive Semikha?

Rabbi Jeffrey Fox

Rosh Yeshiva

Introduction

Are women permitted to receive סמיכה (ordination) according to Jewish law? Yes.

When Yeshivat Maharat opened its doors in 2009, the founders and stakeholders undertook a careful analysis of the various halakhic sources governing the ordination of women. At that time, Rabbi Daniel Sperber and Rabbi Yoel Bin Nun wrote brief תשובות, placing their imprimatur on women and סמיכה. Building on the work that has already been done in this area, at this juncture, I would like to offer an in-depth analysis of two of the central areas in the halakhic debate.

1. The nature of סמיכה in the modern period.
2. The position of רמב"ם as it relates to שררה.

This paper will be organized into the following sections:

1. סמיכה – What does it mean today?
   1. Understanding the nature of סמיכה ​in the modern era.
   2. Women as פוסקות הלכה.
   3. Mapping the role of the synagogue Rabbi and addressing the concerns therein.
   4. Understanding concerns of modesty and tradition.
2. שררה – What is coercive authority?
   1. The רמב"ם’s approach to the question of שררה ​(coercive authority) and his place within the broader halakhic system.
   2. The debate around suffrage and qualification for office in the early part of the 20th century in Israel.
   3. Women functioning as משגיחות כשרות – ​kashrut supervisors.
   4. The question of women on Synagogue boards.
3. Conclusion

I. סמיכה – What does it mean today?

A. Understanding the nature of סמיכה in the modern era.

What is the nature of סמיכה in the modern period? In order to understand this question, we must first look back at the גמרא which outlines the basic contours of this issue. Within the בבלי we can point to three different types of (or phases of) סמיכה.

• First, there was the סמיכה given from Moshe to Yehoshua and that was handed down from generation to generation – איש מפי איש. The גמרא refers to this as מיסמך סבי, “the ordination of the wise (or the elders.)” The details of this kind of סמיכה are given in סנהדרין י"ג ע"ב-י"ד ע"א.
• Second, the גמרא refers to נטילת רשות מבי ריש גלותא או מן הנשיא, “Receiving the permission of the Exilarch​ (in Bavel) or the Nasi​ (in Israel).” This type of סמיכה comes with government protections including malpractice insurance (ואי טעה מיבעי למיפטרא). The details of this type of סמיכה are outlined in סנהדרין ד ע"ב-ה ע"א. Note that the first two phases of סמיכה are described in two different סוגיות in the opening chapter of מסכת סנהדרין.
• Third, while describing the סמיכה that is given by the Jewish governmental authorities (נטילת רשות מבי ריש גלותא או מן הנשיא), the גמרא goes on to describe a more informal process of permission granted from teacher to students – נטילת רשות מרבו.

These three different types of ordination seem to function entirely independently of each other. However, over time they came to be viewed as inter-related — not only linguistically, but also legally. The רמב"ם clearly differentiates the third category from the others by listing those laws in פרק ה מהלכות תלמוד תורה, while the first two are codified in פרק ד מהלכות סנהדרין. The laws associated with נטילת רשות מרבו are more closely linked to questions of the appropriate honor and deference accorded to one’s teachers and masters.

However, the first two categories — מיסמך סבי (what has come to be known as “classic” סמיכה) and נטילת רשות מבי ריש גלותא או מן הנשיא — are linked in creative ways by the רמב"ם. He seems to see the relationship as involving much more than just nomenclature, but that the ordination granted by Jewish political authorities is meant to, in some fundamental ways, echo the classic ordination from Moshe to Yehoshua. This connection likely allowed the רמב"ם to innovate the possibility of the renewal of the classic סמיכה through the authority of all (or most) of the Rabbis in the Land of Israel.

Ordination in the modern period is limited to נטילת רשות מרבו. When a student is ordained by a teacher — or a group of teachers — they are being licensed to answer halakhic questions in specific areas of Jewish Law as delineated on the ordination document. סמיכה today is defined as a היתר הוראה (license to pasken​) granted from teacher to student.

The גמרא clarifies the nature of the ‘permission’ granted from teacher to student with the following narrative:

The above story teaches us that סמיכה in the modern period is fundamentally a way to make sure that those who are teaching Torah take responsibility for their speech. When teaching Torah, it is essential to express yourself with clarity and precision so that the community understands what is being taught. The clearest statement defining סמיכה in our times can be found in the words of Rav Moshe Isserles (Remah)​:

He then restates this position in his glosses on the שולחן ערוך:

Rav Moshe Isserles clearly defines the modern institution of סמיכה as the granting of a kind of license from teacher to student, היתר הוראה. This phenomenon is something different from the first two. It is not: 1) The סמיכה of Moshe to Yehoshua, nor is it 2) permission from the governing authorities. While the one who is ordained is invested with a certain kind of personal authority, that authority is only effectual because the community chooses to grant it. In fact, that is true about (almost) all authority today.

Some have pointed out that Rav Moshe Isserles has a תשובה where he seems to claim that even the modern סמיכה may retain some of the requirements of the classic ordination. In the שו"ת רמ"א כד he deals at length with the status of a שתוקי and whether he may function as a Kohen if the mother claims that the father was, in fact, a Kohen himself. At the end of the תשובה he refers to the position of the רמב"ם that limited סמיכה may only be given to someone who is qualified to receive סמיכה in all areas of Jewish law.

However, it is clear that we do not apply this limitation to people who receive סמיכה today. As Rav Meshulam Roth has pointed out, the רמ"א must have changed his mind based on the way that he paskens ​in both the דרכי משה and the הגהות in the שולחן ערוך. If we accept the approach of the רמ"א as authoritative, then סמיכה is fundamentally a היתר הוראה granted from teacher(s) to student(s). We therefore need to address the question of women as פוסקות הלכה — decisors of Jewish Law.

B. Women as פוסקות הלכה

The clearest פסק in support of the permissibility of women as פוסקות הלכה comes from Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai (the חיד"א) in his commentary on the שולחן ערוך. In חו"מ סימן ז סעיף ד, Rav Yosef Karo codifies that a woman is disqualified as a judge. The חיד"א wrote in his 1011 commentary on חושן משפט:

The ברכי יוסף makes clear that the ability to answer questions is based on a person’s experience and wisdom and not their gender. He refers to an אשה חכמה not simply as a theoretical category but rather as a descriptive reality.

Rav Bakshi-Doron wrote similarly in his בנין אב א:סה:

Rav Bakshi-Doron’s approach is significant for a number of reasons. First, he makes clear that whatever position might be withheld from a woman must also be withheld from a convert. Second, he accepts the reading of the חיד"א that permits women to function as פוסקות. Finally, he makes an important distinction between leadership (הנהגה) and coercive authority (סמכות).

However, it is important to note that Rabbi Leonard Matanky, the president of the Rabbinical CA at the time, wrote a letter to Rav Bakshi-Doron in June of 2015 asking him to clarify his position. Rabbi Matanky asked Rav Bakshi-Doron if he thought that it was permissible to grant סמיכה to a woman based on the arguments that he put forth.

Rav Bakshi-Doron responded that there are two reasons not to grant a woman הכימס: first, because it appears to be like the Reform movement; second, because it is immodest for a woman to play this role in public. In the middle of those two explanations he wrote:

He clearly does not want to support the granting of סמיכה to women, but he also does not want to diminish his strong argument pertaining to women as פוסקות or מורות הוראה. While סמיכה today does not grant coercive authority (שררה) and merely serves as a license to decide matters of Jewish Law (היתר הוראה), it would be unfair to claim that Rav Bakshi-Doron is in support of granting סמיכה to women. However, it is still the case that his reasoning helps to provide the basis for which the granting of סמיכה to women can be viewed as within the framework of the מסורה.

C. Mapping the role of the synagogue Rabbi and addressing the concerns therein.

In addition to the fact that סמיכה grants people the permission to decide matters of Jewish Law in particular fields, it also allows someone to lead a community. The roles of a community rabbi vary widely depending on a variety of factors, including the specific communities they serve and the time period in which they lived.

There was a time when the position came along with the requirement to function as a judge. That is simply no longer the case for most community rabbis. Even if this were to be part of the job description, it would be permissible for a woman to serve as a judge on behalf of a community who accepted her authority — as Rav Uziel has shown.

It is fascinating to look at historical documents to get a sense of the development of the ‘job description’ of a rabbi. It is helpful to start with the כתב רבנות, written in 1731 when Rabbi Yaakov Yehoshua Falk, author of the פני יהושע, began to serve the community of Berlin. Here is a list of the eight requirements that are listed in his contract:

1. He must display fear of heaven.
2. He has to speak twice a year — שבת הגדול and שבת שובה.
3. He must function as a judge in monetary cases.
4. He must lead davening​ three times a year — תפילת טל, תפילת גשם ונעילה.
5. He receives the third Aliya​ every Shabbat.
6. He is honored to have a special seat in shul by the Western wall.
7. He receives a salary.
8. He has a place to learn, teach and live.

These eight requirements reflect a set of assumptions regarding the role of the community Rav which are not in consonance with the modern experience. While everyone wants their rabbi to display fear of heaven, and we hope that the rabbi receives a respectable salary, most of these expectations have changed immensely.

Rabbis typically speak at least once every Shabbat and likely more than that. Many rabbis have a מקום קבוע in shul, but that is not always the case. While some rabbis will lead davening, there are many communities in which members lead davening or there is a שליח ציבור. The receipt of סמיכה implies nothing about the person’s voice or permission to lead davening.

Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein in his ערוך השולחן wrote a brief outline of the role of the Rabbi:

Here, the ערוך השולחן sees the central role of the rabbi as one of deciding matters of Jewish Law (להורות). He also adds an assumption that the rabbi can serve as a judge (לדון). While in some communities that may be the presumption, it is certainly not the case in the vast majority of Modern Orthodox shuls. In the contemporary period many fewer rabbis study for and receive סמיכה in דיינות (ידין ידין) than those who receive the basic היתר הוראה (יורה יורה).

Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg in his book of essays לפרקים also produces a list of the core 16 functions of the community rabbi. He lists four main jobs of the current rabbinate:

1. A teacher of Torah — מרביץ תורה
2. A decisor of Jewish Law — פוסק
3. Public speaker — דרשן
4. Pastor —לדאוג לחולים, לעניין ולזקנין, לכושלים ולנדכים, בין במובן החמרי ובין במובן הנפשי והמוסרי
5. To care for the sick, the poor, the elderly, the weak, the handicapped – both from a physical perspective as well as a spiritual and ethical perspective.

Rav Weinberg’s approach to the rabbinate reflects the reality of the modern pulpit rabbi today. He also displays an understanding that the rabbinate is not only about Torah and Halakha but that it required much more.

It is significant to note the ways in which the roles of the rabbinate have changed from the time of the 1731 (פני יהושע) to the 1954/5 (שרידי אש). Over the course of 300 years the function of the rabbi changed substantially. One might argue that the job description of the contemporary pulpit rabbi has changed even more radically to include CEO, program director, outreach coordinator, caterer and youth director in addition to many of the above roles.

It is also important to separate the role of Rabbi and Chazzan (שליח ציבור). While in smaller shuls the rabbi often leads davening that is not the case in many Orthodox shuls where the membership is empowered to lead tefila​. Granting of סמיכה is not related in any way, shape, or form to questions pertaining to the roles that women may or may not play in ritual leadership. When a woman does function in a synagogue it is important to have a strong gabbai​ in place who can manage and coordinate some of the ritual and logistical issues that take place in the men’s section of the sanctuary.

D. Understanding concerns of modesty and tradition.

The value of modesty or צניעות is extremely important. Some have claimed that the real opposition to the granting of סמיכה comes from a concern about the private role that women are meant to play in the Jewish world. The value of modesty is so important to me that I believe it should be applied to both men and women. The type of immodest behavior sometimes associated with public figures in this country is not acceptable for anyone.

In a deeper sense, I think about modesty as a religious goal that all people need to continue to develop and attain over the course of a lifetime. One would never claim that Moshe Rabbeinu was not a humble person – והאיש משה עניו מכל האדם אשר על פני האדמה (במדבר יב:ג) – and yet he went to Pharaoh, argued with Hashem​, and spoke to the entire Jewish People. Moshe was humble because of the way he carried himself, not because he stayed at home.

Rav Uziel wrote beautifully:

He understood that normal healthy interactions between men and women were a natural part of our lives. One could also argue that given the intimate nature of some of the questions the people ask their rabbi, that it would more appropriate — under some circumstances — to have that conversation with someone of the same gender. There is something unsettling about women bringing their underwear to a male rabbi for evaluation. For this reason among others, it is imperative that there be more women fully trained to answer those questions in order maintain appropriate boundaries and צניעות.

Rav Shlomo Wolbe in his ספר דעת שלמה: מאמרי גאולה - בעניני גאולה, פורים ופסח wrote beautifully about the value of צניעות:

When understood as a core religious value and not simply as a rule about dress, צניעות becomes a reason to encourage women to play a unique role within spiritual leadership. Women have already begun to answer questions in areas of intimacy and it has brought more questions to the table. The fact is that people want to talk to someone of their own gender about the issues that are of vital importance to their lives. Granting women סמיכה and placing them in roles of leadership is a fulfillment of these values.

II. שררה – What is coercive authority?

When the Histadrut​, in the early 1910s, was deciding on the question of whether or not women would be given the right to vote or to be elected, there was a fierce מחלוקת. The positions of Rav Kook and Rav Uziel were clearly articulated and formed the backbone of the debate.

Nearly the same analysis was then applied to the question of women as משגיחות כשרות by Rav Moshe Feinstein. Then, in the 1970s, the same debate centered upon the question of women serving as members of synagogue boards or as presidents of synagogues. In each generation there were those who opposed and those who supported this move forward.

The argumentation set out by Rav Uziel and Rav Hayim Hirschensohn regarding questions of suffrage and qualification for office were applied time and again to subsequent questions relating to women and authority within the Orthodox community.

A. The רמב"ם's approach to the question of שררה ​(coercive authority) and his place within the broader halakhic system.

Much of the debate surrounding the question of the granting of ordination has focused on the issue of authority and the limiting approach of the רמב"ם. This section will help to locate the source of the רמב"ם's approach as well as the position of the majority of other ראשונים.

The classic ad locum מפרשים ​of the רמב"ם point to the ספרי in שופטים, פיסקא קנז as the source of הלכה ה.

The ספרי extends the limitation of anointing a non-Jew as king to any other appointments of non-Jews to positions of authority.

A similar halakhah is found in the גמרא:

The law articulates the requirement for leadership - whether for the king or for any position of authority - as being limited to those people who are “מקרב אחיך - from among your brothers (or kin).” The ספרי and the גמרא together clearly extend the limitations of leadership to exclude those who are not your kin beyond the arena of kingship. The רמב"ם, however, took the additional step of extending the same limitations not only to converts, but also to women.

It is therefore difficult to regard this passage in the ספרי or the גמרות as the proof-text for the רמב"ם. In fact, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, Rabbi Hayim Hirschensoh and Rabbi J. David Bleich are all at a loss to locate a true source for the רמב"ם. Rav Hirschensohn refers to a passage in פסיקתא זותרתי but is himself unconvinced.

It is significant that in the Finkelstein edition of the ספרי ​there appears to be an explicit version of this text that may be the source for the רמב"ם:

On the face of it this seems to be the obvious source for the רמב"ם. This passage extends the same the limitations of leadership to women as the printed edition did for converts. It is possible that the text in the Finkelstein edition was inserted by the editors on the basis of the רמב"ם, but I find this very hard to believe. We will need to look carefully at other ראשונים who deal with similar issues to find if this text was adopted by any other authorities.

In the final analysis, the רמב"ם has almost unchallenged and incontrovertible authority within the history of halakhah such that he can make a claim that does not necessarily have a source within חז"ל. The question that we need to analyze is how did other ראשונים grapple with this same issue and do they pasken​ on this question explicitly?

There appears to be only one other ראשון that relies on this text and therefore would agree with the position of the רמב"ם. The ריטב"א,​ in addressing the question of the status of Devorah — the prophetess and judge — says the following:

The question that is bothering the ריטב"א was not a new one, but his answer is different from nearly all other ראשונים who address the problem. If indeed we accept that women are not permitted to sit as judges in halakhic cases, how could the Jewish People have turned to Devorah as a judge?

Contained within the answer of the ריטב"א is a reference to the extension of the limitation on women’s leadership outside of the arena of kingship

It remains unclear whether the ריטב"א is quoting the Finkelstein ספרי or simply assuming the halakhah as cited by the רמב"ם. Regardless, this passage from the ריטב"א clearly is in consonance with the פסק of the רמב"ם.

What about the majority of ראשונים? The intellectual tradition from which the ריטב"א emerged did not seem to agree with his approach. Here we can see the overwhelming position of ראשוני ספרד:

All of these ראשונים are dealing with the same question of the puzzling status of Devorah and they offer similar answers. It is significant that none of them make the extrapolation that the ריטב"א made to other appointments. In addition, as part of their answers they refers to Devorah as “מנהגת - leading.” It would be difficult for the רמב"ם or the ריטב"א to use that terminology because, for them, appointed leadership of any kind is prohibited.

These ראשונים even go one step further and say that a woman may attain the status of queen if people relate to her in that way so long as she is not appointed in a coercive fashion. Even if we do not accept this in practice, it is clear that they all rejected the רמב"ם and ריטב"א.

In commenting on the beginning of the fourth chapter of שבועות which outlines the removal of women from testimony, many ראשונים raise the same question and use similar language. The רשב"א and the ר"ן both articulate a similar approach, though with additional answers to the Devorah question.

In addition, when the בעלי התוספות address this question throughout ש"ס they offer three 37 different answers: 1) Women are, in fact, permitted to judge. 2) Devorah was not a judge but a teacher of judges. 3) Since the community accepted her leadership it was permissible.

All three answers are summarized by the ספר החינוך:

Regardless of which answer within תוספות we​ regard as the most reasonable, ​they all appear to reject the רמב"ם. In addition, the רא"ש cites the same answers as the בעלי התוספות. The חינוך in a number of different places clearly rejects the רמב"ם as well.

It becomes overwhelmingly clear that the positions of the רמב"ם and the ריטב"א are minority voices within the annals of the history of halakhah. Much of what is outlined above can be seen in Rav Moshe Feinstein’s two תשובות about the permissibility of having women serve as משגיחות כשרות. Rav Moshe makes it clear that he thinks that the רמב"ם and ריטב"א represent a minority opinion. Nonetheless, he attempts to make the claim that even according to them it would be permissible to have a woman serve as a משגיחה. ​We will return to Rav Moshe below.

B. The debate concerning suffrage and qualification for office in the early part of the 20th century in Israel.

We can now understand the shape of the arguments about: passive and active suffrage, women as משגיחות כשרות, women on synagogue boards, as well as the question of סמיכה. The analysis will be nearly the same in each instance.

First, people will debate if we pasken​ like the רמב"ם (and ריטב"א). Those who want to accord women more leadership opportunities will emphasize the fact that the רמב"ם seems to be very much a minority opinion. Those who want to limit women’s access to this kind of authority will try to move more ראשונים to align with the רמב"ם. Even those who are inclined to permit women, for example, voting rights, will center their argument within the approach of the פוסקים .רמב"ם will then analyze the specific issue at hand to see if it falls within the rubric of שררה according to רמב"ם.

In the early part of the 20th century this issue was being raised the world over. In 1917 among the very few countries which allowed women to vote were: Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Russia. By 1925 nearly all of the Northern European countries as well as America (1920) granted women the right to vote. However, no country around the Mediterranean basin had yet granted women that right. The Balfour declaration of November 1917 forced this issue in Palestine as the new Yishuv​ would be forced to elect a governing body. Elections were called for October 1919 and the Second Constitutive Assembly had decided in June of 1918 that women would be permitted to vote and could also be elected to office.

The religious community was quite literally torn apart over this issue. This is what caused the עדה החרדית​ to split off from the אגודה. The old Yishuv​ was fighting amongst its פוסקים and many believed that granting women the right to vote would mark the end of traditional religious life for the Yishuv​. The Mizrachi community reached out to Rav Kook in hopes that he would offer a more calm approach and allow women to vote. They were surprised at Rav Kook’s strong opposition. It was not until Rav Uziel wrote two foundational תשובות that the community was able to rally around someone who was willing to allow women to vote.

The most comprehensive analysis was actually first undertaken by Rav Hayim Hirschensohn in his מלכי בקדש​ where he dealt at length with the issues as they related to active and passive suffrage. Rav Uziel in his two important תשובות in 1920 referred on several occasions to Rav Hirschensohn. In these two תשובות he argues that women are certainly permitted to vote and can be elected. Rav Uziel, basing himself in large part on the answers of תוספות regarding the status of Devorah, argues that if the community accepts her—a woman may serve as judge. He then went on to claim that the position of the רמב"ם is not only a minority opinion but refers to it as “הלכה דחיוה – rejected law.”

Rav Uziel was also keenly aware that the debate surrounding this question was not only about how to understand the position of תוספות, but revolved around deep questions concerning the traditional role that women were playing in the home at that time as well as more nefarious assumptions about the potentially limited intellectual abilities of women.

He wrote:

The notion of “reality smacking us in the face” is a powerful reminder of the ways in which we dare not ignore the world in which we live when making halakhic decision. I am not aware of 46 anyone in the modern debate making the claim that women simply do not have the intellectual capacity to study and absorb the content of the סמיכה curriculum. Such a statement would simply be based on ignorance.

It is interesting to note the development of the position of Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg. In 1939 he wrote regarding the question of granting women the right to vote:

While Rav Weinberg did not see a formal halakhic issue with women voting, he was worried about how it might impact the more private nature of women. Since Jewish mothers thrived in the home, the desire not to change that status quo seemed better to him.

However, nineteen years later in 1950 and now living in Montreux he softened his approach.

After referring to both those who are stringent and those who are lenient he wrote:

Rabbi Weinberg began to see things differently and understood that something was in the process of changing right before his own eyes. Some will feel unsettled as a result of these changes. Others will embrace the new reality and move forward.

C. Women functioning as משגיחות כשרות – ​ kashrut supervisors.

Rav Moshe Feinstein in 1960 in his two teshuvot concerning hiring a woman as a משגיחת כשרות employs similar methods in modelling the same kind of argument. First he asks from the רמב"ם:

Then he shows that the רמב"ם is a minority opinion:

In the second תשובה he spends even more time showing just how much in the minority the רמב"ם truly is:

In both תשובות he then goes on to say how this is such a difficult situation because this is the only income for the widow. Her husband was the משגיח and now she cannot seem to find another job. Given those parameters, Rav Moshe is inclined to be lenient. He then wants to try to make the argument even within the position of the רמב"ם:

It is interesting to note that in a parallel case Rav Moshe was willing to go one step further. Since many of the same issues that apply to the leadership and authority of women apply to converts, Rav Moshe was asked if a convert may serve as a ראש ישיבה. Here, he weighs the value of ואהבתם את הגר and confronts the רמב"ם in a way that he was not willing to do for a woman:

He is careful in the last line quoted above to distinguish the roles played by a ראש ישיבה from those of a משגיח. One is hard pressed to believe that Rav Moshe thought that in fact the authority associated with a ראש ישיבה was less than the authority granted to a משגיח. It is clear that in both instances Rav Moshe was showing great sensitivity to the person who was being impacted by his answer. That is what made Rav Moshe among the greatest פוסקים of the generation.

There were some who disagreed with Rav Moshe. Rav Menashe Klein wrote three lengthy תשובות opposing women on synagogue boards as well as rejecting the notion of women serving as משגיחות כשרות. He deals at length with the question of the נאמנות of a woman in this setting, but agrees that ultimately Rav Moshe is correct that fundamentally a woman is נאמנה in these circumstances.

He then deals with the broader question of women in leadership and is very bothered by the lengths to which Rav Moshe went to be lenient for the widow. He concludes his final תשובה:

In his ילקוט יוסף on איסור והיתר, Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef addresses the same question. The bulk of the essay deals with the question of נאמנות. Only in the last six lines does he even ask the שררה question. In those six lines he quotes the רמב"ם and then Rav Moshe’s leniency for the widow. He then concludes:

Ultimately Rav Klein thought that allowing a woman to serve in a public and official capacity as a משגיחה was a violation of both the letter of the law of שררה as well as the spirit of the laws of צניעות. It appears that Rav Yosef’s concerns lie more in the area of policy. In a community in which women simply never play a role in public life, this approach makes sense. It is clear that for those people the רמב"ם’s approach is not simply a minority position but reflects their lived reality. In a community in which women speak in public on a regular basis, this is simply not the case.

D. The question of women on synagogue boards

The next major issue was the question of women in positions of lay leadership on synagogue boards. The leading lenient voice on this issue was a well-known Rabbi from the Bronx, Rabbi Shmuel Elimelech Turk.

Rabbi Turk published a lengthy back and forth debate that took place in the pages of Hadarom in his own ספר the פרי מלכה in 5741 (1980/1). Rabbi Bleich then wrote a summary of much of this material in Tradition ​in the Spring of 1974. As Rabbi Bleich notes there (pg. 255) none 57 of those writing about the question of women on synagogue boards referred back to the תשובות of Rav Hayim Hirschensohn, Rav Uziel or Rav Kook. The only modern source they deal with are the תשובות of Rav Moshe about women as משגיחות כשרות.

Rav Tchorsh, who wrote in opposition to Rabbi Turk, was an important figure at the time and was the head of Mizrachi. He had already written what was then a popular ספר called כתר אפרים. The book contains a lengthy essay of his entitled “זכויות הנשים לפי התורה - The rights of women according to the Torah (#16).” which is one of the most sophisticated apologetics affirming the exalted position of women as homemakers.

He begins by quoting many of the statements that praise women as greater than men and then he points out that there are three areas in which the roles of men and women are differentiated according to the Torah - testimony, judgement and inheritance. He continually refers to “מהותה הטבעית - the essential nature—of women” as modest and inwardly focused. The Torah therefore chose to limit the public sphere to men only.

Rav Tchorsh offers three main reasons why women should not be permitted to serve on synagogue boards. First, he refers to a section from the רמ"א regarding the standing that the “טובי הקהל” must maintain. In חו"מ ס"ס לז the רמ"א wrote:

Rav Tchorsh extends the concept of טובי הקהל to include anyone in a leadership position in a Jewish organization. Not only does the extension seem questionable, the רמ"א himself only says that the people who may not serve as טובי הקהל are those who would be פסול as judges because of רשעה. This clearly does not apply to women.

He then goes on to refer to a more general problem of כבוד הציבור. His working assumption —though never questioned — is that it would be an embarrassment for the community to allow a woman to play a role in public leadership. There are some communities within the Orthodox world in which this would still be true today. In such a setting, where it would be truly disturbing for a woman to stand and speak in public, I think that Rav Tchorsh’s claim is true.

His final claim is that this type of leadership would violate the רמב"ם’s proscription of שררה. He also tries to show that all the ראשונים who Rav Turk and Rav Moshe claimed reject the רמב"ם actually agree with the רמב"ם. While none of these ideas by themselves carry much weight, when considered in the aggregate one can appreciate the concern that some פוסקים might express around these issues.

Rabbi Turk in each of his pieces makes a claim that was also put forward by Rav Uziel - being elected to a synagogue board or to a government position is by definition not שררה even according to the רמב"ם. He adds a few other אחרונים to the mix, all of whom claim, based on different cases, that being elected does not constitute שררה.

Rabbi Turk begins with an analysis of the minority position of the רמב"ם and then goes on to say that even according to the רמב"ם we need not be concerned. Both of his fundamental arguments are encapsulated in this short paragraph:

Rabbi Turk says that the job of Jewish communal leadership is by definition not one of coercive leadership (שררה) but rather one of service (עבודה). This is a very healthy outlook regarding the structure and hierarchy of the community. Anyone who has been in a leadership position understands from experience the veracity of this approach. In addition, the existence of communal elections – whether for political office or synagogue board – fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship.

If we accept Rav Uziel and Rabbi Turk’s claim that being elected — and not appointed — to a position is by definition not שררה,​ then the question about women as clergy in shuls becomes moot in America. Since rabbis are serving shuls that are 501c3s which all have by-laws and rules of governance in which every shul decides the exact procedure for the election of a Rabbi, functioning as clergy in an American synagogue cannot, by its definition, violate even the שררה of the רמב"ם. What Rav Uziel and Rabbi Turk are in essence saying is that democracy subverts שררה by its very nature.

Rabbi Hayim David ha-Levi made a very similar claim as well:

What emerges from the different positions presented above is an understanding of שררה that allows for women to serve in public roles of religious and spiritual leadership. While we cannot simply ignore the רמב"ם, we can certainly choose to pasken​ like the majority of ראשונים who reject him. And just like Rav Uziel, Rav Moshe and Rabbi Turk, we can show the ways in which the nature of the rabbinate in the modern period would not even be considered שררה by the רמב"ם himself.

Some might choose a different path of psak​ based on the nature of their community and follow the lead of Rav Kook, Rav Tchorsh and Rav Klein. I respect that decision and can understand the wisdom of living in that environment. However, the community in which I live and which I love encourages women to vote and to serve on boards of Jewish institutions. It flows from the reality of that kind of communal life that granting a woman סמיכה is not a violation of any norms of modesty.

III. Conclusion

When we look back at the way these debates have unfolded over the past century, we see a clear pattern of argumentation. From the beginning, Rav Uziel laid out the basic halakhic framework for permitting women to serve in positions of authority.

He took the following steps:

1. The position of the רמב"ם is not the mainstream view and may have even be rejected within the history of halakhah.
2. The בעלי התוספות give us a more mainstream framework to understand that women may function in positions of authority.
3. Even for those who are concerned about the position of the רמב"ם, democracy by its very nature, subverts the notion of coercive authority.

The same exact argumentation can be applied directly to the question of women receiving סמיכה and functioning as religious leader in a communal or synagogue setting. Since the definition of סמיכה today is היתר הוראה, there is no violation of שררה. Even from within the minority position of the רמב"ם, communal rabbis are elected to their position and therefore, by definition this is not a problem.

The reality of women learning גמרא and הלכה at a high level and receiving סמיכה in recognition of those efforts is one of the greatest blessings of our generation for a few reasons. First, more people are now able to enjoy the beauty of this aspect of Hashem’s​ Torah. Second, young women will understand that they have a place and a voice in our community and in the halakhic discourse. Third, the Torah that will ultimately be produced by these מוסמכות will help women and men come closer to Torah.

Finally, and in the deepest sense, this phenomenon is a fulfillment of what the Creator of the World wants to see from the Jewish People. The expansion of the world of Torah to include ALL of God’s creations should be celebrated and not denigrated. The Orthodox women who have already received סמיכה as well as those currently in the midst of the process are models for everyone – men and women – of people who want to serve כלל ישראל and כל יושבי תבל with a deep and passionate אהבת תורה and יראת שמים.